Its more accurate that the Corruption Perception Index the Economist uses, because it takes alot of studies / surveys of corruption.

Eliminating corruption in the type of dictatorship by committee that China has is difficult, because there are large groups of people with a vested interest in the corruption. Asset disclosures for officials helps, helps a bit, but at the end its largely irrelevant, because it depends on the honest of the official.

If you look at the rankings of countries that have low corruption there are only democracies, one man dictatorships / family (Lee Kuan Yew) and the Gulf States (absolute hereditary monarchies) - Kuwait, Qatar and UAE. Let's look at the last two. In these type of setups, the ruler ultimately takes responsibility for all the cockups/corruptions that occur under the system. In contrast in China, with 80 Million CPC members, does any one really believe they can reach a consensus that goes at the system of patronage / advancement.

The Emir of Abu Dubai did not become Emir because of a combination of merit/boot licking/patronage, he is Emir because he was next in line. He does not owe anyone any favors. Xi Jinping became GS not only because he was capable, but largely because of politics. In a country as large as China, there might be 100 people that can replace him. He owes his position in part to people who have become very rich because of corruption.

If the system of meritocracy was so great, why did China have Emperors for over 2000+ years. Why didn't they just let the bureaucrats rule China? No one on the forums or anywhere online has ever answered the question adequately. Dictatorships by Committee don't usually last long, it becomes a democracy or eventually a strong man takes over.

The anti-corruption drive is going to lead to nowhere, as long as there is not well funded independent body tasked with it. I find it distressing that the Western press would cheer what is really vigilante justice. A Party officials sacked because some blogger posted pictures of him wearing an expensive watch? It might be OK under party regulations. Some might call it adhering to the socialist legal system, I call it mob justice. Its the type of justice that Deng wanted to get rid of when he came to power. Unfortunately, it has permeated so deep in mainland Chinese society it will take generations to get rid of. Some of our mainland Chinese posters call China a meritocracy, when the very legal system allows (and explicitly allows it) this type of charade.

How can you can China a meritocracy when many senior judges have no legal training?

I always believe that structure determines how an organization works internally more than culture. Anyone who works for a law firm, engineering firm, etc, knows all around the world, they are more or less structured the same way. The same applies for hospitals, universities, advertising companies.

China has adopted a system of government from the Soviets, whether executive, judicial, legislative. There are some differences, but its definitely more similar to the Soviet system than Taiwan during the KMT. One can gain a lot of understanding of the "socialist system" used in China today by reading the Russian Civil War from 1917-1922. All the Socialist structures originate there, and if you want to go back further, you can go back as far as the French Revolution of 1789.

What you mean? You want China to catch up with India's corruption's standard,higher standard than China, by your democratic panacea or piles of princes or kings just as the Gulf States? which country want to follow? I am sure that China won't.because we needn't more princes or kings,we also believe that China can catch up with India's corruption's rank in 100 year.

"If the system of meritocracy was so great, why did China have Emperors for over 2000+ years. Why didn't they just let the bureaucrats rule China? No one on the forums or anywhere online has ever answered the question adequately".

This simple question has been answered many times. The Chinese are very pragmatic. Which system works well, then they adopt which system.

Chinese emperors failed to fight against Western imperialists and Japanese, so Chinese nationalists and Communists arose. The Chinese nationalists failed to curb corruption and take care of the poor, so they were driven to Taiwan by the Chinese Communists. Chinese left-wing Communists failed to develop economy, so they were deprived of the power and left room for DENG Xiaoping. DENG Xiaoping adopted meritocracy instead of dictatorship. It works well for China till now. If meritocracy does not work in the future, then the Chinese will reject it mercilessly. However, if it is still works well, then the Chinese will reject democracy mercilessly - Simple.

Always the pragmatism argument. The reason why it failed, because those Chinese Emperors, were Manchus, and spent alot of money and lives trying to preserve their rule against Han Chinese. I am not stupid, don;t give me those trite answers. If it was a Han Dynasty I doubt there would have been a Taiping Rebellion / White Lotus Rebellion. It was these two rebellions that sapped China of its strength. Seriously, do you really think the Opium War even compares to Taiping Rebellion.

Read the World Bank indicators. They are saying corruption in China is worse than India, I am not the one saying it. I said that the countries that have the least corruption are democracies (Western) and one man dictatorships/monarchies. There are no collective style leaderships among the least corrupt.

It shows you don't distasteful of not just democracy, but even of other authoritarian governments, like monarchies. Why the hate? What is wrong with a monarchy? China has been ruled by Emperors for 4000 years. What is wrong with that? Its not something that is alien that China. Are you saying that the CPC is superior to a system of government that has served China well for 2000+ years? Did I even argue about democracy? I just said that the system that China has today will be short lived, because the type of government that China has today is historically shown to be unstable throughout the world and even China itself.

China itself has had rule by such a system in its past, ie triumvirates during the Han Dynasty, but it did not last for a very short time. There was conflicts between the co-regents.

You are angry because I don't offer the standard BS of democracy is good etc, but I argue that to stamp out corruption, China needs a strong man (ie Mao Tse Tung/King). You have to argue what its a bad idea, why the current system is better.

Deng Xiaoping never adopted meritocracy, read all his speeches, he does not mention meritocracy at all. Read the Constitution, whee does it say that China is a meritocracy? It does not say its a meritocracy.

Do you know why did Taiping rebellion arise? A key reason is that the Chinese people were disappointed on Qing Kingdom's failure to fight against Western powers. See Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
"China, under the Qing Dynasty in the mid-19th century, suffered a series of natural disasters, economic problems and defeats at the hands of the Western powers; in particular, the humiliating defeat in 1842 by the United Kingdom in the First Opium War. The Qing government, led by ethnic Manchus, were seen by much of the Chinese population, who were mainly Han Chinese, as an ineffective and corrupt foreign regime. "

China Eagle _- reason commands + how could one Emperor with his harems full of the most beautiful of Asia and foreigners' women have ever ever under any Dynasty had the time to rule China alone without the help of the castrated bureaucrats.

China is a nation and a people like many countries are. Whether free or slave or socialist or individualist expect these simple things to change so long as time flows. Meritocracy today and dictatorship tomorrow means litle in the eternal flow of the TAO where men and women are full of one another and the common nature they share with all other BEINGS ! What the bird kissy do suggest is that the Chinese expel the foreigners MARX & SMITH & Even those misunderstanding of Christ and GOD and those illegitimate thoughts that the Ancestors are not for REAL !

You are twisting the wikipedia article. If the Taiping rebellion was really anti-Western, why the hell did Hong Xiuquan call himself the brother of Jesus Christ? The paragraph gives the context in which it happened, not Hong's motive. Please read carefully

If you read further into the wikipedia article, Here is his motives

". After studying the material, Hong Xiuquan claimed that the illness he had following his imperial examinations was in fact a vision to the effect that he was the younger brother of Jesus, who was sent to rid China of the "devils," including both the corrupt Manchu rulers and the teachings of Confucius. After this vision, he felt it was his duty to spread his interpretation of Christianity and overthrow Manchu rule. Hong's associate Yang Xiuqing was a former firewood merchant from Guangxi, who claimed to be able to act as a voice of God, in order to direct the people and gain political power"

It was the Taiping Rebellion, not the West that broke tha back of the Qing Dynasty. The sad thing is the Taiping Rebllion is so poorly taught., but it was the most important event in Chinese history during 19th century. Far more important than Opium Wars by a hundred times. The warlordism of the 1910-20s in Chian was caused by the Taiping Rebellion. China's economy shrank by 50% during the Taiping Rebellion.

Yes the Opium War caused the Taiping Rebellion, but not in the way you see it. If Hong was not introduce to Christianity by missionaries (that came about as a result of the Opium War) there would not have been a Taiping Rebellion. If there was no Taiping Rebellion, the Qing would most likely have not fallen.

Taiping Rebellion was not the Boxer Rebellion, don't confuse the two. It was 100 times more destructive than the Boxer Rebellion. It was not anti-Western or that concerned with the West.

The Taiping Rebellion was the largest war in the 19th century in the World. It was China`s first Total War. It was the first time in history were there was mass mobilization of females to fight. Yet in China its treated as side show to the Opium Wars, in which maybe 10,000 people died (largely soldiers)

Always the pragmatism argument. The reason why it failed, because those Chinese Emperors, were Manchus, and spent a lot of money and lives trying to preserve their rule against Han Chinese.]

I am sure the the Manchus did that but that only give the Rebels an extra reason for their actions.

[ I am not stupid, don't give me those trite answers. If it was a Han Dynasty I doubt there would have been a Taiping Rebellion / White Lotus Rebellion.]

There might not have been specifically called "Taiping Rebellion / White Lotus Rebellion" but there were REBELLIONS at the end of the Han Dynasty(ies). How else was the Han replaced by Sui anyway? I think you knowledge in History is excellent but you tend to choose bits of history to suit you own prejudice.

There were rebellions at the end of every dynasty (including the Han and the Qing) because the government had become so incompetent that the normally very meek Chinese peasantry HAD to rise up and overthrow it in the hope of getting a better one. If the current CCP government is not careful, it will get the same treatment as well-- Except it won't be from the peasantry, which is being killed off by industrialisation-- by by whatever the new working/producing class that will come into existence (industrial workers, I guess). The fact that Manchus was considered "foreign" had relatively little cause. The Brits in Hong Kong was certainly far more "foreign" that the Manchus on the Mainland but there was no "Taiping Rebellion / White Lotus Rebellion" style rebellion of any significant size. Chinese tends accept whatever government which manages to maintain social stability and economic growth.

[It was these two rebellions that sapped China of its strength. Seriously, do you really think the Opium War even compares to Taiping Rebellion.]

You are most probably right. It is a shame that neither succeeded. Otherwise, China's suffering might have been shorten by a century.

I think you are making the incorrect assessment that the Manchus = Han. If you look at the ethnic Han Chinese dynasties, revolts don't happen until the end (last 30-40 years). 50% of the time the Qing were in control, it was either conquest or facing serious Rebellion. So to treat the Manchus just like another ethnic Han dynasty is inaccurate. White Lotus Rebellion started in 1790, 120 years before the eventually fall, and about 100 years after the Qing conquered all of China. The ethnic component plays a big part. While the Manchus were less foreign than the Europeans, but so are the Japanese. When the British took control of Hong Kong, they bought land from farmers to setup government offices. How did the Manchus do it when they setup garrison cities in key Chinese cities. Simple, they just kicked people out and setup their garrison towns. They killed tens of Millions of Han Chinese during the initial conquest. But let's be frank, they were a very cruel and nasty people, and what they did to Han Chinese during the invasion and afterwards, will put the what the Europeans did to shame.

Unlike the Mongols, they tried to force their customs on the Chinese, banning certain Han Chinese clothing, making Chinese males wear the queue. The whole concept of giving foreign "concession" to the Europeans, sounds alot like the Garrison towns for the Manchus found in most Chinese cities. When you already have different laws for Manchu/Han, how difficult is it to allow the Europeans their own laws?

China needs reform, but should be a rational one instead of an emotional one. Hope that with the help of Mr.Xi, China will become a country with true harmony and stability. And more important, living standard of the entire nation could rise step by step.

Worked for Taiwan -Hong Kong wants it but China blocks it. Singaporeans want democracy but the PAP does its best to block it. India--messy but works. Arab Spring in process and very messy but on track.

The picture shows Jinping's second wife, the Peony Fairy, right? Whatever happened to his first wife? Where is she nowadays? Just curious since China is reforming, de-corrupting and opening-up the private lives and the bank accounts of the top CPC leaders (including their extended families?) As Iching88 pointed out one should start IMO by exposing all the "overseas connexions" first.
It is indeed charming to see the friendly, disarming public façades (not to mention the "Rejuvenating Chinese Dreams") of the seven Members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo of the CPC (is 7 considered a lucky number in China? but 4 is bad, right?). Well, someday we might have Paparazzi following them to get more "revelations", right?

Good questions,but I think somethings in reform need some time for every body including the leaders.Many people are glad to see some progress since the new leader Xijinping takes office.Many measures and actions are appreciated by general public.At least,China highest leading team,led by Chairman Xi,seem like more open-minded and pragmatic.They should can do better than predecessors.

what you said is just like your name :silent night, what leaders do is just hopeless, never ever can the top-leaders give you democracy, only if you struggle for yourself
.
***************************************
.
Who are on top of food chain in "free" world?
.
Go try to fight against them and see what you get.

hopeless world is handed by more and more guys just like you, by the way, people who thought as you guys called "wumao" in chinese means you are hired by authority as well as zombie,we see nothing but deperate from your brain

I do not expect rapid change in Mr Xi's administration unless something like Arab-spring happen ,as THE ECOMOMIEST said ,"stability is the age-old excuse from reforming".
what i got to say is that the goverment should be the last dynasty exit in China,and the f*** portray of MAO should be took down!

Arab Spring???? you meant Arab Winter... and the Chinese don't want that.
And if democracy turns out to be the kind of demo-crazy like India, that's the last thing they need.
China will eventually turn into a kind of representive government but won't be the Liberal Democracy as in the West.

China has already moved faster than almost every other developing countries ,why do the Chinese need the brainless Arab spring ? why they give up their peaceful ,safe and better lives only because the West say China is a dictatorial regime,most of the westerners only can get the info from their stupid media and they can not speak and read Chinese so it's really hard for them to do the same thing like me surfing the foreign websites and get the info by myself then do the comparison,maybe the Chinese media cheat me and I know meanwhile western media cheat you and you don't know

'Western media is stupid'...really? I can read and speak Chinese, and have lived in China. Your assumptions about Chinese people's peaceful, safer, and better lives is really subjective, and most would say, ironic. You seem to be a 'angry youth'. It's not about Chinese people 'giving up' their political system because westerners say so, it's about Chinese people pushing for their own rights guaranteed to them by the Chinese constitution.

What right are you talking about?
.
Right over capital to few rich and big corps;
Right over natural resource to few rich and big corps;
Right over information to rich own media;
Right to greedy unions and parasites;
Right to criminals.
.
This is not the right you talk about, but it is the right in reality.
.
You are still brainwashed by your authoritarian media. Please associate what you are told by authoritarian media to what is going on in real world.
.
****************************
.
See what happened in India?
.
What you believe never deliver justice in poor countries, people in rich world can ESCAPE the unjustice because of economic opportunities, not beautifully written language.

I was talking about the rights in the Chinese constitution. I take it that your are trying to say that America has no rights? While they do have their problems, that's not what this topic, nor my post is about. Stay on topic please.

I basically agree with chinerican,China has alread moved faster than almost every other developing countries,what you want? if you have a dream of making big money overnight,it will be very unrealistic,unless you can give us a example that there is a developing country can do better than China in same situation in the world,no matter dictatorship and democracy it is.Certainly you aren't a "angry youth",you are a "angry aged".Travel around the world and come back to China,then tell us somethings about your answer.

I don't agree that "Western media is stupid",after all,western media just as any other foreigh organisations or foreigners who can not know more and better than Chinese themselves.

Agree. While the West has problems and the Western media not perfect, it does not make China superior. The aspirations of the Chinese people are undermined by vested interests in the Party. It is not pro-Western democracy that is wanted. It is anti-corruption and the wealth that accrues to the princelings that is wanted. Reforms ? There will be no courage to carry them out except on a small scale.

The publication of photos of Mr. Xi and other members of the Politburo and their families reminds me of one Chinese saying that goes like ‘ domestic sales of goods originally produced for export’ meaning what is good in quality is sold first of all for overseas market before it is consumed by consumers at home. The photos of the new leaders with their families are published by Xinhua news agency in English first and then appear on Chinese language media, which at least removes doubts from ordinary Chinese about what family they were born into or who their family members are. This may be the first step towards transparency if any. Another piece of news that our TE correspondent missed to report was his motorcade was blocked by traffic lights in Beijing when Mr. Li Keqiang was on his route to attend an important conference.

And of course what the politburo should do is far from just to show who their family members are or how they will be treated when taking their official inspection tours. In the year 2013, the most significant approach to anti-corruption is to implement official property report system with public supervision. Without supervision from without, there is no castigation from within the CCP. One case in point is how Mr. Bo Xilai is tried in this regard. Power without control is most dangerous.

The second advance towards reform is how to spur domestic consumption, which is the key to sustainability of China’s economic development. Huge government investment has been proved wide of the mark ever since the year 2008 in infrastructure, and what concerns all the members of the Politburo should be an adjustment of development model with urbanization as the core. Compared to the developed nations, the number of rural populations in China totals that of the whole populations less than 50 %, which leaves much room for urbanization drive. Could income of both rural and urban citizens be doubled by 2020?

The third move forward is how to keep both stability and prosperity. In its transition period from planned economy to free market, the mot pressing challenge China is faced with is the would-be social chaos resulting from radical changes that would squeeze interests of various involved groups. Take the reform on medical service on state expense. Public servants in China are entitled to free medical care, which is denounced by ordinary employees who have to buy insurance on their own pocket. But until now, all measures taken to reform on this free medicine are nothing but government subsidy in replace of medical insurance covering ordinary employees.

The fourth step forwards is how to settle disputes on waters and islands with neighboring countries in 2013. no one is in hope of a war to solve issues with his neighbors, and so is China as a country. With Mr. Obama’s ‘rebalance’ Asia and Mr. Abe’s stance on the Diaoyus, what China should take into consideration is long term benefit rather than short term interests as Mr. Deng pointed out the issue of the Diaoyus could remain to be settled until the next generation provided that Japanese government had not nationalized the disputed island.

‘empty talks would lead the country astray, and hard work can rejuvenate the nation. ’

I'd like to comment on the 'second advance' you recommend, I think that spurring consumption is important but it should not be the priority of China. First of all, consumption has been steadily increasing in China and will continue to do so with generations to come. This is because there is a gradual loss of values in China dangerously leaving money as the dominant value. The politburo is very much aware of this problem and has been taking steps towards re-educating confucian values to the Chinese (which is another topic altogether). An example of this is the censorship of the word luxury in advertisement. So my first argument is that consumption is already increasing on its own. Furthermore, when you talk about consumption, you must measure it to the scale of China, a 1% increase in the yearly consumption of beer of the chinese would require the equivalent of the whole wheat harvest of a country like Norway. So an increase in consumption is good but in China, be careful what you wish for.
Lastly, one must remember that savings are the main drivers of investment in an economy and they are one of the reasons explaining China's rapid growth. If consumption is increasing as it is, why encourage it? Encouraging consumption will enable banks to offer lower interest loans, gradually attract more risk and fall into a short-term economic perspective similar to that of consumerism in the US. Instead, China should let consumption rise on its own while implementing long-term economic plans to increase savings (in the 50 years horizon). This is how China will avoid falling into the trap of consuming more and more in order to gain an every-year lower and lower incremental growth.
I will add that the world has finite resources and increasing consumption is certainly not the sustainable long-term option. China knows that, you talk about urbanization, the Politburo signed a contract with architect William McDonough, a world-renowned sustainability architect to create eco-cities. The right way to go for China is not by encouraging consumption but adopting a long-term view of their economy to cope with tomorrows challenges.

In 2011, savings deposits of urban and rural residents amount to 33 trillion RMB, roughly equaling to USD 5 trillion; GDP of the same year comes up to 47 trillion RMB, about USD 7 trillion , which explains how hardworking and thrifty Chinese people are; on the other hand, suggests that there is huge potentiality for consumption. I meant to say consumption rather than over-consumption.

Chinese people are accustomed to leading a frugal life with every penny saved for either supporting their offspring or providing for themselves when they are aged. Unlike mature market economies, China has not established its own sound security network to cover its citizens, and that’s why people still keep to their habit of saving more than spending. There are few in China who spend what should be spent tomorrow today like their American counterparts have done when it comes to consumption.

With that said, consumption in China remains a driving force for economic growth in time to come.

And of course, due attention should be directed to eco-balance and adopting a long time policy to cope with chanllenges in future.

I think that the Chinese elites have already gotten consensus on political reform - meritocracy (alias. democracy with Chinese characteristics), transparency, and rule of law. The difference is SPEED. I understand that many Westerners are missionaries of their "democracy". However, what Westerners don't understand is that they don't know what are URGENT problems in China.

Democracy sounds good but it requires a lot of COMPLIMENTARY ASSETS - accounting and auditing (to ensure that information disclosed by government and officials are reliable), a good legal system (to ensure rule of law), an internal control system (to ensure split of power and to curb corruption).

The most URGENT task for XI Jinping is CURBING CORRUPTION. Most of the Chinese elites clearly know that exposing the wealth of Communist officials and enhancing internal control are must-do things in the near future. No matter how difficult and how many resistance XI Jinping will face in the next 5 years, he must carry out policies to ensure transparency and internal control.

Democracy is never on the top list of must-dos for XI Jinping and for China because democracy has been proved to be useless to curb corruption - as shown in Italy, India, and many democratic countries.

Additional point is that Democracy is very hard in current China. Because Democracy requires that the common pepole have better education background. If without this, the Democracy in China will be turned to another way, which means it will be utilized. Because i am from the village and my parents are farmers in China. i can predict what will happen for those people if we do Democracy.

And i also think it is very hard to only depend on the Communist offical itself to stop the corruption. All the people should supervise the public power. So, internet is a very useful tool. it gives the ordinary people the right of free speech.

That is what I meant - transparency is much better than democracy. Exposing the wealth of Communist officials (transparency) allows the Chinese elites (instead of uneducated farmers) to overview Chinese officials. It is better than allowing ALL Chinese people to overview Chinese officials (that is, democracy) because many Chinese are still not sufficiently knowledgeable to overview Chinese officials.

Transparency means exposing it to everyone more or less, not just the elite. If it was the elite, why should they care if X makes that much. It won't make a difference. Curbing corruption is not that important, its just not. If it was China's corruption would not have gotten worse. And the World Bank studies show it as being worse than India, And releasing Assets its not going to do much good, it never really does. If he goes far enough they will have him exposed for corruption or try to go after him. Its that simple. Anyways he won;t do it because he is part of the system.

Certainly transparency means exposing it to EVERYONE. However, uneducated Chinese will not be able to judge whether the wealth of Chinese officials is earned legally or not. Only Chinese elites can make such judgement.

If China keep its meritocracy - then Chinese elites are able to figure out who is corrupt and who is not.

If China switches to democracy - then the majority of the Chinese (many of them uneducated) will punish WEALTHY Chinese officials - no matter they earn their money via legal methods or not. So democracy does not fit the current situation in China.

Many surveys have shown that most of the Chinese think that curbing corruption is the top1 priority XI Jinping needs to address. Maybe Westerners think that "democracy" is the top1 priority but the general Chinese never put it on the top 10 list.

You can never bet on the CCP leaders with vested interest and their princelings to purge themselves. Hu/Wen leadership has demonstrated no real progress with reforms. Restoration of meritocracy and a proper system of law can hopefully progress with the internet and right now the external press.

As usual you don't know what you are talking about. If the elies were the only one to know then what difference would it make. Nothing. They will still be corrupt as before. The only people capable of making that judgement are police/judges, but unfortunately most judges in China don't have any legal training. Transparency is letting everyone know what is going, If its just the elites its not Transparency.

"If China switches to democracy - then the majority of the Chinese (many of them uneducated) will punish WEALTHY Chinese officials - no matter they earn their money via legal methods or not. So democracy does not fit the current situation in China."

The is a bit rich coming from a lackey of the Communist Party of China. How about you people first start by giving back all the property that you took unlawfully from people in 1949. Is typical mainland Chinese hypocrisy. Its amazing how you people can are so self absorbed and delusional.

"Many surveys have shown that most of the Chinese think that curbing corruption is the top1 priority XI Jinping needs to address. Maybe Westerners think that "democracy" is the top1 priority but the general Chinese never put it on the top 10 list."

No the first priority is ensuring improving living standards, no curbing corruption. Curbing corruption is a means to an end, not the end itself. The reason why corruption is a concern is because its starting to seriously effect China's growth. Come on it has been like this for 30 years. Corruption is not the end of the world, it only could become a problem if the Chinese economy sinks. But if the CPC faces a recession (ie negative growth), and the Chinese revolt, then frankly the Chinese people are pretty selfish. It takes alot to topple a government like the CPC, China would ahve to go through a Depression, before they lose their credibility. Its just a show, that you people are silly enough to believe in. If China was to grow at 3-4% a year for the next 20 yeas, will the CPC be overthrow. No it won't even if it was corrupt as i is now.

China won't go the way of the Arab Spring, primarily because of no opposition, China is a big country. Big decentralized
countries like China/India can take a lot of crap.

In Alexis De Tocqueville's classic 'The Old Regime and the Revolution', the author says the French revolution happened as a result of (not inspite of) an easing of political restrictions.

De Tocqueville proposed that this could be the case with other authoritarian regimes: the point of maximum danger to the ruler comes when the ruled are finally allowed a little space.

So the CPC could be correct in thinking that order is more important than democracy, at least as far as the Party is concerned.

The problem for the CPC is that the internet and communications technologies make information ubiquitous, even in heavily censored societies such as China, and it is not clear whether such regimes are still able to prevent the spread of ideas amongst the people.

The problem for the CPC is that the internet and communications technologies make information ubiquitous, even in heavily censored societies such as China,

*****************************

No, it can't. but it prevents sick journalists sensationalizing topics for their own gains, like Zimmerman's case, like rich-own authoritarian media controlled the anger of people towards banks after 2008 financial crisis.

Yes. In today's world trade and investment flows are global. Nations that are plugged into this grid are exposed to global ideas. Censorship by governments is a reflection of its inability to win its own people with its own ideologies. The grand bargain between CPC and its people is waning through the blatant corruptions of the connected and the pricelings, etc.